Also Read - MP High Court Grants Interim Protection to Viral Kumbh Mela Star and Husband

In reviewing the records, the High Court found that candidates who lacked the prescribed qualification, were over‑aged or under‑qualified were allowed to participate in the selection process. The Court rejected the contention that the candidates could retain their posts because they had acquired the necessary qualification during the pendency of the proceedings, observing that many other employees might have also obtained the qualification and that equal opportunity required opening the selection to all eligible persons.

The High Court concluded that the authorities had relaxed the service rules to accommodate in‑service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of initiating a direct recruitment process as envisaged by the rules. It warned that such a practice would send an incorrect message to the public about the sanctity of recruitment norms. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appointments and granted liberty to the Madras High Court to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the service rules.

Also Read - Supreme Court Directs Formation of SIT to Re‑investigate 2023 Death of Congress Candidate’s Driver in Madhya Pradesh

Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, nine of the affected candidates filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench, after hearing the parties, issued an order directing that notice be issued to the respondents and that the matter be returnable within four weeks. In the interim, the bench ordered that the effect and operation of the Madras High Court’s judgment shall remain stayed.

The stay preserves the status quo of the seventeen appointments until the Supreme Court examines the merits of the special leave petition. The decision underscores the Court’s willingness to intervene when a High Court’s finding of arbitrariness may affect substantive rights of candidates, while also ensuring that the underlying recruitment process is not disrupted pending final adjudication.

Also Read - Bombay High Court Suspends Sentence in Canal Drowning Case

Legal experts note that the interim stay raises important questions about the extent to which administrative relaxations of statutory recruitment rules can be justified, particularly in the context of judicial appointments. The forthcoming hearing will likely examine whether the circular’s provision for a grace period constitutes a permissible relaxation or an impermissible violation of equality and merit‑based selection principles.

The parties are now directed to file their respective counter‑affidavits and written submissions within the stipulated period, after which the Supreme Court will hear the matter afresh and determine the final outcome regarding the validity of the selection process and the appointments of the seventeen Personal Assistants to Judges.

Also Read - Supreme Court Disposes PIL on Minors' Access to Pornographic Content